Anti-Jewish double standards

Perhaps when those "ordinary Israelis" asked Andrew Percy "What would you do?" he could have referred them to criticisms of Israel that he himself raises in his article:

"Where is the political leadership for peace with the Palestinians? Is enough being done to prevent civilian deaths in Gaza? Was Israel right to so swiftly reject the Palestinian unity government? And of course when will the Israeli government bow to international pressure and cease the settlement expansion programmes?"

But instead of raising these issues, Andrew Percy comes home and writes an article which follows the usual script - that dropping massive bombs on a highly populated area is "defensive", rather than a reaction to the inhumane, illegal and oppressive treatment of the Palestinians which the "international community" has been doing as lot of hand wringing about but seems unable or unwilling to prevent.

Another account www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/499875/Andrew-Percy-on-the-war-in-Gaza

Are Jewish people the only people in the world who have been the subject of racism and genocide? As Sacks acknowledges himself, during the Holocaust Roma people, physically and mentally disabled people, mentally ill people, homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, etc., etc., - an estimated 5-8 million - were also exterminated, and women born of black/white couples were sterilised.

The Palestinian people have been forcibly (and deliberately) dispossessed of their land, and this process continues, despite it already having been established that Israel's actions are against international law. Hamas rockets are a response not just to the illegal seizure of land and resources but also to the unequal treatment under the law of Palestinians and the terrible conditions under which people in Gaza have to live. For instance, water is allocated in the occupied territories by the Israeli authorities. Jewish settlers are allocated 5 times the amount per head as are Palestinians.

Sacks says that there is a new anti-Semitism, based not just on hatred of their religion and race but also on hatred of the Jewish nation state - and that these two elements have now combined to create not just criticism of Israel but demonization of it.

There are people who are racist and who jump on a bandwagon in order to forward their racist agenda. But to suggest that everyone who criticises Israel is also party to an intrinsic hatred of Jewish people is, I think, a cheap shot. If I criticize the laws and conduct of a country such as Saudi Arabia (which I do), does that mean I am also party to an Arab-hating agenda? Even Jewish people who criticise Israel are being labelled "self hating Jews" - a tactic which suggests they are psychologically damaged and thus unable to think rationally.

Bags I agree with you, but we should guard against all forms of intolerance in our society.
It is not just religious and racial intolerance, but some sections of the media seem intent on whipping up hatred of any group of people who are different, whether they are inhabitants of sink estates or they have been to famous public schools.

We seem to be a much less tolerant society than we used to be, and the press, and social media where people can leave anonymous comments that they wouldn't dare to make out loud, are much to blame IMHO.

edit - the Market bomb that I was near to was in 1997, not 2002.

As Seasider says, it helps to see things in perspective if you've visited Israel.
The first time I went there, 1983, I arrived at Haifa bus station and there was a bomb alert in the adjoining shopping Mall. A young lass, couldn't have been more than 18, a soldier, cleared the place quickly. She was well armed.
Another time, 2002, I had just left the Machaneh Yehudah, when a huge bomb went off killing and maiming many people.
They are on constant alert still for such things.

Great posts Niggly. I visited Israel a few years ago and found the people to be warm and friendly and very family orientated. I was shocked by the strong security measures when entering and leaving the country (even searching a 4 month old baby) and it made me realise how they have had to fight to protect themselves over the years. Whilst their response may be disproportionate it is Hammas who keep breaking the ceasefire bringing more misery to their own people.

Thanks for pointing that out, janea. However, the crux of Sacks' argument still stands: antisemitism is on the increase in Britain and we need to be alert to it and deal with it effectively.

Thanks When.

Some letters of reason:

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/gaza-propaganda-machines

And Galloway called for Bradford to be an Israeli-free zone. SSR is not Israeli.

That of course does not excuse Galloway's behaviour, but it does point to the inaccuracy of SSR's statement.

Yes I think you are right Tresco
What a vile man George Galloway is.
However Bags I think SSR would have made his point better by criticising George Galloway personally, rather than making an imprecise allusion which somehow seems to imply that all the citizens of Bradford, or even just one if them, want Jews to be banned from their city.
If I lived in Bradford I would have felt quite affronted by SSR's letter.

I think the banning from Bradford is one of George Galloway's publicity stunts - still vile but would hardly prevent anyone entering the city.

I expect it was hard to take in his face too, whether the person saying it had any right to say it (they didn't) or not, and even if SSR took no notice of the stricture. What matters is the reason such things are being said. It is scapegoating pure and simple, i.e. wrong.

I would like to know what Stephen Spencer Ryde meant exactly, when he said that in Bradford he was told he was not even permitted to enter the city.
Of course no right-thinking person would condone anti-semitism, but this particular example seems a little hard to take at face value.

Prejudiced twats is what they are; I don't know about the who part.

Moving letter, bags. Shame about so many of the comments. Who are these people?

Letter in the Independent.

Thanks B

I think that Sacks and others are telling us that because of what is going on in Gaza there has been a noticeable and troubling rise in anti-semitism in various countries. He is not placing the Israeli government above criticism at all but he is worried, as I am, as we all should be, about the behaviour of some people who don't seem to be able to separate in their minds the Israeli government and Jews all over the world.

Jonathan Sacks has always seemed to me to be a good and wise man, and I can agree with much of what he says.
However no government can be above criticism and it alarms me that criticism of the Israeli government is so often taken as anti-semitism. So here is another article written by someone with a personal relationship to the Holocaust who has also been accused of being anti-semitic
www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html
and another interview with her.
www.pressgazette.co.uk/mira-bar-hillel-says-fellow-uk-based-jewish-journalists-wont-speak-out-against-israel-fear

It's precisely because of those words of Jonathan Sacks quoted above that I want to see Israel and the Palestinians (both Muslim and Christian) living together in peace - and that demands honesty and truth on all sides.

Gosh, he writes well, doesn't he. I can't pretend to understand all of it, but this struck a cord:
" But it is our difference that constitutes our humanity. Because none of us is the same as another, each of us is irreplaceable. A nation that has no room for difference has no room for humanity."

Good article by Jonathan Sacks. The earlier part is potent and chilling and we should take heed.

As might be expected, I don't agree with the points he makes about secularism in the second half of the article, though I think he's right about the need for our common humanity to be what is important rather than our religious differences. Secularism stresses that very point.

Tony Blair - never!

Then the peace talks must concentrate on the legalities, not on the underlying hostilities, and a lasting contract formed which guarantees the rights of Palestinians to THEIR homeland without settlements encroaching on it in return for respecting Israeli rights to be in THEIR homeland.

On the Israeli side, freedom from tunnels and rockets in return for respecting Palestinian rights to the land which they live on.

Then the peace terms need to be monitored.

Who can broker these talks? Who can monitor the ensuing peace? The US is partisan and not trusted by Palestinians, the surrounding Arab nations not trusted by the Israelis, the UN is toothless. Who is left? Tony Blair? He has been very quiet on the subject.